YULDM's page

Well. Looks like some things take a very, very, long time to go out of beta...

I like many of the suggestions I've read about this "problem".
It's great to see many minds working together.

I have one more suggestion.
What do you think about this:

Untrained: -4
Trained: +0
Expert: +lvl/2
Master: +lvl
Legendary: +lvl+3

(restricted access to M and L)

JJ in 2011 isn't developer, ages ego enough for you?

(did not refresh the thread before posting, didn't see it)

So, why is this thread goes on since 2011, for 450+ comments? This should be used to close the thread on the first page... (and not waste everybody's time)

Thanks

If the Sneak Attack rule was not broken, Devs would have come out ages ago to settle the matter.

I know this thread is old... I didn't find any official statement about this from the dev though.

Until then, I have two suggestions. One for use with "once per round" ruling, and one for use with "unlimited per round".

ONCE
Instead of one SA per round, I suggest as many as the number of iterative attacks (so 2 at 8th and 3 at 15th).

UNLIMITED
To soften the damage output of multiple SA, I suggest removing one die for each subsequent hit on the same round. A 11th-level Rogue do 6D6 pn first hit, 5D6 on second, 4D6 on third... (this on HITS not attack. If the Rogue only hit on his last attack, he has full SA dice)

What do you think?

Anyone from Canada has checked Amazon.ca this week?

It seems like they removed every stock of their PF books.
There is not a single one in stock except for the GM screen.

I had 3 products in my cart, Serpent's Skull #2 (pre-order), Serpent's Skull #3 (pre-order) and Pathfinder companion:Sargava.

Around September 14th, SS2 and SS3 were removed from my cart and disappeared completely, and Companion is now only available from third party.

I hope this is a temporary situation. :(

Why not only a "movement" skill, which would includes different sub-categories. Like Perception with smells,listen, ...

You can be good at moving, climbing, flying... And you get racial bonus for sub-skill. Or you can have a feat to get a bonus.

Examples:
-Birds have a low movement skill, but receive a +8 on flying movement.
-Black Dragons have some ranks in movement skill, plus bonus on fly and swim
-Bob the fighter has no ranks, but took flying feat for +4
-John the rogue has lot of ranks, and is a very agile swimmer/flyer/climber.
-Movement is a class skill for Druids
-Dwarves have racial modifier on burrow...

Or something like that...

I don't think Fighters are flavorless. They are just focused on fighting. And with fighter bonus feats, a player can give a fighter the flavor he wants.

I would suggest allowing the Ranger to make a Knowledge check and using his level instead of rank. (which would be the equivalent of having max rank in this skill)

Also, to make the Ranger better at knowing things against his favored enemy, I would also suggest to add his Fav.enemy bonus to the check.

Example:

Ranger 10th-level, int10, fav.enemy Undead +6, Dragon +2, no rank in knowledge

Knowledge (Religion) +16
Knowledge (arcana) +12
Any other, +0 and untrained (max DC10)

The checks are only for knowledge of creatures (strength, weakness...).

I agree that CHA does not give as much benefit as other stats.

I am in favor of adding something to the mechanics that would be CHA-based...

... but I am against changing actual rules to replace another stat bonus with CHA. (mostly because of backward compatibility)

Something new is always nice, but be careful with balance. AP is a good idea, but it would need lot of playtesting to find the right amount.

[...]

I dislike the idea that the best searchers (for trapdoors, traps, hidden compartments...) in my party would be druids and rangers. If the perception skill is maxed for druid, ranger and rogue, certainly that the first two classes will have higher wisdom scores than rogue, and so they will be primary dungeon, city/mansion-investigation :), trapfinding searchers.
[...]

This is a good point!

I think that Search can be use to search for clues (not only traps), more like "Investigate", which really sounds Int-based. Sherlock Holmes!

To me, Perception/Search is Notice/Investigate and should be different skills, based on different abilities.

If Perception and Search are separate, a new feat, class ability or racial ability could be added to make Search Wisdom-based. (Ranger or Elf ability?)

I am all in favor of standardization. But I don't like giving the Toughness feat. (dipping issue...)

I prefer the suggestion of adding 1hp/Brb level. A kind of "Barbarian Toughness". (that would stack with the Toughness feat, if a player choose to take it)

Changing D12 to D10+1 also gives an unlucky player an higher *minimum* HP. A roll of 1 becomes 1+1, and I think it fits with the concept of the tough Barbarian.

It is also easier for backward compatibility. Average D12 = D10+1. No change has to made to Barbarian from 3.5

The only reason rogues can stand there and dish out buckets of sneak attack round after round is because DMs aren't running monsters and NPCs realistically.

If I'm flanked by fighter A and rogue B and fighter A hits me for 15-20 damage per hit while rogue B is hitting me for 40-50 damage per hit, guess who I'm going to smash the s%~& out of first? The rogue! If your rogues are just moving into flanking positions and delivering massive damage, make them pay for it. They've got light armor and mediocre hit points. They won't last very long when every single monster they try this trick on suddenly starts smashing their faces in at every turn.

What if Fighter A grapple? How can the monster attack the Rogue B?

Or what if the rogue is invisible? Will you try to hit fighter A or hope for a hit on Rogue B with 50% conceal (considering you know which square he is in)?

Or what if you can strike back because you are already dead because of ridiculously high damage from Rogue B?

[...]
No, fighters aren't primary damage dealers.
[...]

I mean... Really?

Maybe we should ask Monte Cook what was the intented role of the classes when he work on the PHB:

When I read "opportunistic", I understant ONCE IN WHILE. Not 4 times in the same round, in consecutive rounds... And when I read "aren't capable of prolonged melee combat", I understand SHOULD TRY TO AVOID MELEE ATTACK most of the time.

I don't think that the intent behind sneak attack mechanics was to make the Rogue the primary damage dealer. It was just something that happened because of missing rules to balance this feature.

Yes, I said "balance". Nerfing is not nerfing when it is balancing something out of control.

I already proposed 2 tweaks in another thread to balance SA.

*Tweak 1: Decreased number of D6 of sneak attack by 1 on next hit in the same round. (5D6 first hit, 4D6 second hit, 3D6 third hit... reset at end of round, and exclude AoO)

*Tweak 2: Make number of D6 of sneak attack EQUAL to Rogue level (5D6 at 5th-level, 10D6 à 10th, 20D6 at 20th...), but make SA usable only once per round (but NOT as a standard action, to allow for Spring Attack and/or AoO)

[...]
Fighters don't get SA because fighters aren't primary damage dealers. Fighters are damage soakers.
[...]
Rogues and Barbarians are the two main melee damage dealers.
[...]

Really?

I don't understand this concept.

I always thought that Fighters were supposed to be the ones good at fighting. And "good fighting" was being able to deal damage AND survive the battle. Not standing there waiting to get bashed...

A Raging Barbarian deals more damage? That could makes sense, since this class is more about brute force.

... but the Rogue? Are we talking about the halfling, specialized in hiding and dealing with traps (and surviving them!). This small adventurer, not so strong or resistant (lower HP) and not good at attacking (lower BAB), should get on the front line to kill the Colossal Beast?

hum... seems strange.

If the concept of the Rogue is really to be a primary damage dealer, than the whole Rogue class is broken, and the Fighter class too.

So instead of a complete redesign of two class, I think it would be better just to tweak the Sneak Attack. And removing flanking might not even be enough. Greater Invisibility, attacking a grapple opponent, or just acting first in combat can all lead to a very abusive situation with a rogue.

And nobody wants to be useless in combat, I understand. By the way, D&D is not a fighting game, it is a ROLEPLAYING game. Are you saying that if a Rogue is in a fight against a creature immune to sneak, he should do nothing?

When a Ranger is not against his Favorite enemy, is he useless? Is a Paladin fighting neutral creature useless? What happens when a Bard is not playing music, nothing? Does a Cleric sits down in a combat until someone need healing?

The main combat role of the Rogue is to sneak attack... but they should not be primary damage dealers. If the are, then they should also have an higher BAB, to reflect this role. One way or the other, there is something not working with the sneak attack concept.

I still like the original proposition (D6 decrease on next hit), but I have maybe a new proposition.

Instead of reducing the number of D6 of SA, I propose to increase this amount to 1D6/level (similar to some spells). The SA ability is then usable only once per round (similar to some spells), but not as a standard action. A Rogue Talent can give the Rogue a second SA in a round (similar to a quicken spell).

Tweak #2
Sneak extra damage is 1d6 per level. Once a rogue have dealt sneak attack damage in a round, he can not sneak attack again on this round.

What do you think about this tweak?

YULDM wrote:

TWF is too weak or too powerful?

IMO, it's about right. The problem is that TWF rogues are are too powerful, and TWF monks could use some help. I'd address these two specific issues if it were my call (and AFAIK Jason has some ideas for monks).

The discussion about fighters has been about game design principles and making the game better. At least from my part.

I'm pretty sure some of the other posters have different options.

I'm glad you bring up TWF Rogue. I propose something for this in this other thread.

If all three basic methods of fighting* can be more balanced in some way, the player will choose a method corresponding to his taste, not according to available feat, or power of method.

*3 methods of fighting:
TWF: Two-Weapon Fighting (more chances of hit, but less damage per hit)
THW: Two-Handed Weapon (more damage per hit)
OHS: One-handed with Shield (more AC, but less damage per hit)

I'm not sure that I follow this thread correctly...

TWF is too weak or too powerful?

[...

In the end, I think adding a feat that gave all reach weapons the chance to attack adjacent foes just like a Spiked Chain would make the Spiked Chain no longer "the only smart choice".
[...]

This is a good point. And it seems to offer more balance compare to other weapons...

... but to get more balance, shouldn't we just try to "tweak down" the Spiked Chain instead of "tweaking up" the system?

EDIT: I just had an idea (maybe a *bad* idea)

What if the Spiked Chain was threatning only adjacent square, but works more like the whip when using with reach? Unlike "pole" weapons (guisarme...) to attack at 10ft you must "throw" the Spiked Chain, thus provoking AoO...

Normal use in adjacent square, attack at 10ft with AoO.

OGC? Whats that, if you don't mind?

I don't know...

Ogre Gastronomy Consortium? Other Guy Crying? Ocus Gopus Cadabra? hehe...

Maybe the problem with the Spiked Chain is not with AoO. Like Scotto show, the Spiked Chain is not well balanced compare to other weapons.

[...]

Reach AND the unique ability to still strike close
Bonus to Trip
Bonus to Disarm
Able to employ Weapon Finesse
Looking at easy-to-get PrC abilities
Able to use Flurry attack

[...]

... and also it's a two-handed weapon, making Power Attack count double.

I think there should be an exotic weapon for attacking at reach and still strike close (an interesting niche). This being a big advantage, this exotic weapon should not include too much *other* advantages.

I think that what Paizo is doing is so great that it shouldn't get stuck with a naming convention taken from *another* game...

When Pathfinder RPG is released it should be Pathfinder RPG, compatible with OGL3.5.

If after that a new version comes out, it should be PFRPG 2.0 or PFRPG 1.5... hehe

Randomness is for me a key aspect of the game. I understand the reason for point buys systems but I find they lack verisimilitude. Unpredictability is fun and I would hate to think a mechanic would be excised because some groups prefer to use an alternate method.

I believe that in the spirit of D&D the die rolls should remain for both stats and hit points, however the text should indicate acceptable point buy systems for use in tournaments, with unfamiliar groups or people that want the appearance of 'fairness'. I know that regardless of what is in the core rules my games will be run with dice.

NPCs and Monsters don't have random HP, they instead have a fixed (average) amount of HP. Their ability scores also follow a standard array. (not much verisimilitude here)

I think that players are *special" in some way, and should not be weaker than average monsters because of bad random dice rolls.

An hybrid system keeps some randomness and at the same time prevent a player of being stuck with a sub-caracter.

[...]
So this is a good arguement for something like this tweak. This tweak includes some mental work for the player with what should be just a simple damage roll. A lot of my players roll several times due to not having a full 10 d6 dice bag. So when you're rolling 3d6 at a time and adding up damage and counting dice it just feels better not to have to keep track of what you're new number of d6 are.

Still not buying it... To roll 5D6 or 4D6 or 3D6, a player have to count them up. If the D6 are already counted, just drop 1D6. A kid could do this... I would even go as far as saying that the mental work required to remove 1D6 from a pool of dice is *less* than the mental work required to add the number of this D6 to a pool of dice.

The rules CANNOT prevent every abuse. Mostly because every abuse is actually a well built class to its strengths that a lot of the other classes then envy. You know what? I think clerics need a tweak because a 20th level cleric in a room with 20 undead is dealing almost 20*10d20 damage! OMG, that could be almost 4000 damage, way more than a rogue can do. NERF!!!

Let's not compare spells with melee attacks. I think that many unbalanced spells need *major* tweak, but this is another discussion. We can not compare spells (usable a small and fixed numbers of times per day) to an ability that is usable "at-will"...

Seriously, I think this build has enough problems already as I stated above. Locworks counted a number of words, but anyone please tell me Glitterdust, a 2nd level spell, doesn't rob the rogue of this advantage. There are plenty of things still out there to spot rogues, believe me. I've been spotted by all of them.

As I stated in a previous post, Invisibility is not the only situation of possible abuse. But I agree with you that DMs have a lot of options to deny the Rogue his ability to sneak attack. However, DMs can not always deny the Rogue one of his core class ability. It would be like removing all undead from a campaign with clerics, never letting a Ranger encounter his favorite enemy... A more stable sneak attack mechanic would let the Rogue play, without a DM constantly needing to hinder him.

I would like to see a list of all the problems with the tweak.
This is a list of NO problem:

The tweak:
- prevent many abuse
- is easy to implement without changing actual game mechanics
- is simple to use
- removes almost nothing from actual sneak attack power (~10% in worse case)
- prevent many abuse

Please add to the Prone condition definition that "you may only attack/threaten opponents with a light melee weapon". The reasons for not using a larger weapon are the same as for not using a bow - you just need to be able to maneuver better, which is not possible on your back.

I've seen too many fights in D&D (at high levels, especially) when a target is tripped and finds it acceptable to just take the penalties and fight from prone with a big weapon. Tripping someone is hard, and it should have hard consequences.

-Scott

Not a bad idea!

It is also coherent with the 3.5 grapple rule. Attacking while grappling is only unarmed, natural weapon or light weapon.

[...]
Two Weapon fighting works as is.

Improved Two Weapon Fighting

Prerequisites

Dex 19, Two-Weapon Fighting.

Benefit

You can make as many attacks with your off-hand weapon as with your primary weapon, using the same base attack bonus. You still take the normal penalties for fighting with two weapons.
Normal

Without this feat, you can only get a single attack with an off-hand weapon.

This is a good idea. It takes one less feat but still requires two.

Does it mean that a 16th-level Fighter can use FOUR off-hand attacks? (current rule allows for only THREE)

And the prerequisite should include the BAB+6.

I think any revision to TWF should follow this concept:

Two-Handed Fighting
=Big amount of damage

One-Handed Fighting
=Higher AC because of using a shield

Two-Weapon Fighting
=More chances of hitting target

The actual mechanic of the game is one of problem with TWF. "More chance to hit" means more chance of dealing damage. When taking hit% in account, potential damage output for TWF can be slightly higher than THW.

Power attack helps the two-handed fighter, but the penalty decrease his chance of hitting, thus sometime reducing potential damage output.

DR reduce damage per hit and this works against TWF.

Also, TWF damage output decrease when number of off-hand attacks are lower than primary attacks, but since they use lower bonus, the amount of damage is not reduce by much.

I don't know if the number of feats require is good or not. We should not forget about the combat style of the Ranger. And if only one feat was require to get same amount of off-hand than primary attack, this would means getting suddenly 3 extra attacks at the cost of one feat at higher levels.

I'm of the opinion that the tweek would be too much book keeping, but it's only because I don't encounter obstacles like you've mentioned.

What do you mean: "too much book keeping"?

The tweak is only this:
You hit, drop one D6 next time you hit on your turn.

(remember, it all resets at the end of round, like iterative attacks and AoO...)

Players can figure out attack modifier and damage on iterative attack, after being buffed by the cleric, fighting with two-weapon and flanking, while attacking a prone foe in a fog area, with power attack and confirming a crit with a bane and shocking burst weapon, all this with the smite evil ability.

huh... Book keeping?

This is not a good argument for something as simple as this tweak.

I had a game with one of my group monday night. I had just read this thread few hours before, so I talk about random HP and different propositions with them. We all agreed on many things:

1- Randomness is fun when rolling HIGH numbers
2- Randomness is bad when rolling low numbers (duh!)
3- Fixed number is dull.

We all found that an hybrid system with some randomness seems to be the best because it removes low HP roll and still allow for a fun dice rolling experience at level up.

I presented them the following two methods:

D4 method:
D6 = 1D4+2
D8 = 1D4+4
D10 = 1D4+6
D12 = 1D4+8

Half-Random method:
D6 = 1D3+3
D8 = 1D4+4
D10 = 1D5+5
D12 = 1D6+6

Everybody likes both method. The methods make sure that fighter-type caracters get more HP than spellcaster-type, which seems logical. We also agreed that, while giving a little more HP to PCs, both system work well with actual 3.5 ressources (MM). For backward compatibility, no change are required.

We all think that the D4 method is the easiest to explain and simplest to put in an rulebook. But we all prefer the Half-random method. (If a D4 method was the rule, we would be happy but we would use the other one as a houserule!)

Our discussion about HP also adress the 1st-level. The SRD standard "max HD at 1st-level" is not logical. We all think it was made this way to give caracters a chance to survive 5 minutes... We use another option:

1st-level, like any other level, use a normal roll (whatever the system). To give more HP, we add HALF constitution score ("score", not Mod). We realize that using the full score can result in a large and weird gap (8CON vs 20CON = 12 HP difference at 1st level), this is why half is better. Using CON modifier made no sense because of possible negative modifier.

This is also simple to implement in previous material. To update a creature, just add half CON score... or don't. Sometimes it is not worth spending time and making some math just to add 8hp to a CR10 monster...

In conclusion, after discussing with my group (and updating their 7th-level caracters) this is what we consider a big win:

Using D4 method for every level (including 1st-level), and giving HP bonus equal to half Constitution score.

*Player are happy because no low HP score, and fun rolling dice.
*DM is happy because no change has to be made when using existing 3.5 ressources.

...

What you are doing (and what you are admittedly trying to do) is directly dial back the damage that Rogues can do. I just don't think it needs to be done. Rogues don't typically use power attack and high strengh bonuses and such to get their damage done: their one method is to sneak attack. It is their Only damage capacity.

Rogues are sneak attack and skill monkey. You are seriously, seriously nerfing their combat ability. I just don't see that it's necessary, when the reasons given are a few select scenarios that play to the particular strength of the SA.

[...]

What you are proposing is a very, very big nerf to the sole ability the rogue has to do damage in combat. I realize that the nerf is your point- I just don't see it as necessary.

What I am proposing is to reduce a little bit of maximum D6 output in certain situation, where the number of D6 get ridiculously high.

I don't agree that this a very very big nerf.

- No change when only sneak attacking once in a round (most situation)

- Worse case is only 10% decrease in total number of D6 for a one handed fighting Rogue. This worst case and will be less in average situation.

- For TWF (where is the most possible abuse) the situation is at a 25% decrease for the worse case. A TWF in most situation will have a significantly less decrease.

Sneak attack is a important part of the Rogue and should not be removed. One of the role of the Rogue is to "sneak". This is why I am only proposing a minor tweak (instead of a big change like making it a standard action).

... and before you start thinking that I hate Rogues, I will say that it is my favorite class, the first one I have played, and one I play most often. This is why I am giving so much attention to all its class abilities!

Flanking and invisibility are not the only situation where a Rogue can sneak attack. Sneak attacks also work with ranged weapons.

Other example situations of easy abuse with no counter:

Monk grapple target. Target is denied DEX Bonus. Rogue makes full-round of sneak attack. Nothing to prevent sneak attacks (only getting out of grapple).

Rogue with boots of speed, with rapid shot, starting encounter at 30ft of target. If the Rogue wins initiative, he activates his boots (free action) and make a full-round of ranged sneak attacks. (target is flat-footed). Nothing to prevent sneak attack on this round.

Thanks for your input, Selgard.

I am trying to focus on the large amount of D6, not amout of damage. And more precisely on *possible* large amount of D6.

I also think that TWF is the best melee option for players who wants to deal damage (sneak attack or not). The other good option is two-handed weapon with high STR and Power Attack. I think a "melee" type of Rogue would choose TWF, even if he has not intend of abusing SA.

I also don't think that "every other classes are being buffed". Too many threads are about people complaining about the "nerfing" of their favorite class...

Back to the tweak:

As many have already said before, the situation where the abuse is possible occurs rarely. I would even go as far as saying that a Rogue would rarely be able to sneak attack more than once in a round. Getting into position is not easy, we all agree on that.

In the majority of situation, a Rogue will only make one sneak attack in a round. In the majority of situation this tweak has NO impact at all.

Yes, the difference in SA power is small. Why does it need to be changed at all though?

Adding WIS to AC is a small change but there still isn't a place for it on my character sheet. But Wis to AC is important for Monks to work.

Why is this important for the game to work? Because it can be abused? I agree with you that it CAN be abused but I definitely think its harder to abuse than you do.

Please tell me whatever happened to make you think its so easy to do. I'm not convinced by the Greater Invisibility = auto victory for a TWF Rogue.

I have to agree with you that abuses are sometimes difficult to do!

What my players came up with was not too difficult and consist mainly of a Sorcerer casting spells and then send a Greater Invisible, Hasted and flying silently Rogue to a target.

The result was a DM who could not *always* deny the Rogue (and the Sorcerer) the use of his core ability. And a game that sometimes looks like "The DM vs The Rogue". Not fun for the Rogue, not fun for the DM and not fun for the other players.

I made a table to show how much is lost for the Rogue with the proposed tweak.

The following tables compare the maximum number of sneak D6 if *all* attacks hit target, for tweak vs actual rule (with percentage).

First table is for fighting one-handed, second is for two-handed (with all feats). Haste was not taken in account, only iterative attacks.

Remember, the following numbers are only when ALL attacks hit. Iterative attacks penalty, higher AC of target,... may cause an attack to miss (resulting in less D6 decrease, and higher total D6 efficiency). Percentage are thus worse case.

The proposed tweak (decrease D6 for next HIT) for one-handed:
average 90% efficiency compare to actual (average 10% loss for worse case)

The proposed tweak (decrease D6 for next HIT) for two-handed:
average 75% efficiency compare to actual (average 25% loss for worse case)

The tweak is a bigger lost for TWF, but this is the intend of the tweak. One-handed fighting start to see a decrease in efficiency only at level 8. If Rogue sneak only once in the round (very common scenario), there is not D6 decrease.

I don't think SA needs tweaking, and I'm saying if you do tweak it, it hinders rogues and the attacks that would have their d6s reduced would already be suffering a -5 penalty each.

It does not hinder Rogue that much.

If your point is that iterative attacks would miss, than the tweak change nothing for you.

If your are only saying that *less* attacks would hit, than it means only a tiny small amount of D6 removed from the pool of sneak attack damage. This tweak is than only micro minor.

But if your are saying that a TWF 15th-level hasted Rogue is loosing a total of 21D6 when his 7 attacks hit target (35D6 total instead of 56D6), than I totally agree with you that it hinders the rogue... But that's the whole point of this *minor* tweak.

We are open to suggestion if you have a proposition to prevent abuse without penalyzing the rogue.

Tweak simple

make attack, deal damage + sneak

make other attack, deal damage + sneak (D6 decreased)

make other attack, deal damage + sneak (D6 decreased)

End of turn. Reset sneak

(player can add dice for critical, than player can remove dice for sneak)

Simple.

No keeping track. No uber-nerfing. No math. No bookkeeping.

...No abuse.

I agree with the "DEX only is not enough". But with perception check to act on the surprise round, you then indirectly include the WIS/INT variable in the initiative.

For the BAB... I am afraid that this would remove the edge Rogues have over Fighters. A Fighter class might be good to attack, but not necesseraly quick to react. And the poor spellcaster will often take his turn last at higher levels if BAB was include in this check. I would prefer not adding BAB to INIT.

But the idea of using size modifier seems very logical. Size modifiers are already includes in other aspect of the game. AC, CMB, BAB...

I would suggest that the size modifier for INIT be the same as for AC.

Maybe there should be a feat to replace DEX by INT for INIT. "I knew this was going to happen..."

Or maybe it is not a feat and only an option.

WIS : almost already includes. Perception check for surprise round.
BAB : not really good idea. disadvantage for rogues in favor of fighters
SIZE : very logical. mechanic already use in other rules
INT: maybe an option or a feat

So the best "mechanic" is one with calm and steady hands (high DEX) and a large amount of practical knowledge (high skill ranks), who doesn't wear gloves. ;)

When you put it this way, it's hard to find argument against it!

It seems totally logical now. The "INT" part of the skill is driven by ranks!

Nice!

As for counting sneak attacks between turns, the only ones that could happen are Attacks of Opportunity. While it is unlikely that any creature would provoke one while flanked, it is possible. I would personally say that AoO applies full sneak attack since it is only a single attack and the reduction is only applied to iterative attacks (including off hand attacks/flurry) on the players action. This means nothing to keep track of between turns.

I think we previously agreed that to remove complexity of this system, AoO should be at Full Sneak D6 . (but may be decreased if Combat Reflexes?)

Nothing to keep track after end of turn.

I think they'll see a big difference when it comes to them doing all the work required to count sneak attacks used between turns. As a DM, anytime I ask a player on what they just rolled for initiative I can't tell you how many times they've had to look at the die again (if they haven't moved it) and re-add their modifier.

That frightens me. How this kind of player will calculate the total of all those sneak D6s at higher level? Gulp! hehe! Seriously, I have to agree with you on this: when will some players going to learn the mechanic of *any* of their core abilities?

Players should be use to deal with complexity. D&D is *already* complex.

I think "minus 1D6" sounds even simpler than "minus 5 on BAB for iterative attack"...

In my opinion, removing a D6 from a pool of dice (after an ATTACK or a HIT) does not add too much complexity.

We could have options like these:

1. Random. Roll 1/2 of current hit die and add half maximum score, so you end up with

d4 = d2 + 2
d6 = d3 + 3
d8 = d4 + 4
d10 = d5 + 5
d12 = d6 + 6

2. Fixed. Give characters 1/2 max + 1 every level after 1st (the RPGA method).

And standard roll of previous editions? Rolling for random number of HP is an important part of D&D...

So 3 options? Random, fixed, and half-random (or half-fixed...)

By the way, I really like the half-random method. Barbarians (D12) will always have better base HP per level than D6 and D4 caracters. It also helps the fighters stay on the front line.

Responses to various points raised in the thread:

I really don't see being forced to change your tactics because of low hp rolls as a good thing. If you're building your character to be a tank and you have a run of low hp rolls, you can't play the character concept you've been building. How does this add to the game? Furthermore, you're not just hindering one character. If the party tank has low hp, everybody has to change their tactics to cover for that deficiency.

Everybody also include the DM. It's dificult to come up with nice encounters that wouldn't kill the unlucky low-hp tank (or any other player). Also, CR work well with average party level... consisting of caracters of *average* power...

Full randomness can lead to extreme situation :
Lucky Barbarian (18CON) 3rd-level, Max HD + CON at first level:
(12+4)+(12+4)+(12+4) = HP48
Unlucky Wizard (8CON) 3rd-level, max HD + CON at first level:
(4-1)+(1-1)+(1-1) = HP5

The DM would have a hard time finding an interesting encounter for them...

Random roll has been around for dozens of years. It will be difficult to remove it from the game. The two other options are very good to adress the randomness issue.

(Meta-note: It's very gratifying to have such attentive critics.)

Should be like this in EVERY threads! hehe!

This is how I see the new feats. I am a little bit in favor of the new feat, but the thing about PrC make me think about the consequences...

Skill Proficiency [General]

Choose a skill.

Benefit
This skill becomes a class skill (giving all benefits).

Special
You can gain this feat multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new skill.

Skill Focus [General]

Choose a skill.

Prerequisite
The skill must be a class skill.

Benefit
You get a +3 bonus on all checks involving that skill.

Special
You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new skill.

Ultimately abusing players simply get abused back.

I understand your point of showing to the players what abused rules can do. I also think you are a very lucky gamer if you have time to play *and* to show them this. hehe!

I once have a player who was a little bit of a rule-lawyer/min-maxer. His way of playing the game changed when he start DMing a new campaign. His experience on the other side of the screen made him realize many things, and he became a better player. But this is a long process...

Sometimes, it only takes a small change to help DMs keep game balance. I would prefer concentrating on good adventures instead of workarounds because of loopholes...

The problem with attempting to correct some rules (any rule) is that we are all used to how things are since the release of 3.0. Any change, good or bad, is still a change and old habits are hard to change.

If the situation was reversed, actual rule was with the decreased of D6 and someone proposed to make same amount of D6 on all attacks, what would have happened? How many would have said "SA are perfect, don't overpower them!"?

The tweak proposed is minor. In that sense, Rogue players who already play "fair" with the rules might not see a big difference. I don't hear any Paladin crying because they can't smite on every rounds...

The APL system recommends that the party shouldn't really tackle anything at CR>APL+3.
A level 4 rogue with 4 ranks in Knowledge (religion) can SA undead of up to CR 8. By the APL+3 rule, the fight with a CR 7 undead is Epic. In a Challenging fight, he will encounter a CR 5 undead which he can SA with 3 ranks (or 1 rank and the cleric's involvement).

Sorry, but I have to show this again.

A 10th-level Rogue with 4 ranks in Knowledge (religion) can SA Undead of up to CR8 (APL-2). The same Undead with 2 class levels (CR10, APL+0) becomes unsneakable without any change in its anatomy.

Maybe your system should not take in account any class levels or templates that are not changing the anatomy? But that will be more complex...

I understand your system, which is why I suggested an 'alternate' as opposed to a 'clariication'. I don't think your system is bad, but I do think your 'on' or 'off' system leads to some interesting scenarios that could be avoided. Skeletons, for example, change CR as they change size. Under your proposal, a rogue could lose SA against them just because they grew in size, even though there is no change in the underlying creature. The same is true of Death Knights; drop the template on a creature with a higher base CR and you may have made a creature that your rogue can't SA anymore. That may be acceptable from a balance standpoint, but it just doesn't make sense to me.

Hum... that's a good point. Like an undead taking level in a class. Same undead, higher CR... Same anatomy, no more sneakable... hum...

Could a knowledge of weak spots in special creature only requires a flat number of ranks in specific knowledge skill?

5 ranks on knowledge religion to sneak attack undead
5 in dungeoneering to sneak attack ooze (or whatever!)
5 in nature for plants
5 in arcana for constructs
....

and maybe different skill ranks for different subtype?

You invest skill points as you like, and once you know... you know!

I think we should playtest both method of D6 decrease. (next HIT or next ATTACK) I will suggest this to the DM and the Rogue in one of my groups.

I would also suggest that Combat Reflexes use the same method. (start with max D6 on first AoO, than decrease for other AoO). Without this feat, the Rogue would deal maximum D6 on his AoO. (no change from actual rule)

TarkisFlux wrote:

I wonder if there's a reason you're excluding the full skill modifier from your formula.

Indeed. A smart rogue and a stupid rogue have the same chance to sneak attack living creatures with a discernible anatomy. (LCDA)

If we want to be consistent for other targets, only training i.e. ranks should count.

I understand your point. And it applies very well to LCDA.

I have some issue I would like to adress:

RANKS vs SKILL MOD
I would have thought that other type of creature (undead, construct,...) are more "complicated" to understand and find weak spot. This is why I would have include INT mod.

Two rogues (4 ranks in Know.Religion) attack undead. They can both sneak attack CR8. But if one is dumb (int mod-4) and one is smart (int mod+4), shouldn't this account or something?

And does the skill focus bonus also count as rank? (like class skill bonus)

CHECK IS FIXED NUMBER
To simpify your method, since no dice are rolled, maybe this is not a skill check against a DC? Maybe the 10+ part of your formula can be remove and just compare ranks to 1/2CR?

1/2CR
Why using half CR? Ranks and CR basically scale at the same rate. If using 1/2CR was only to allow the Rogue to SA target with higher CR than his level, I would prefer adding a fixed number. This would scale more proportionnaly

METAGAMING
"Oh man! I can't sneak attack this creature! Its CR must be higher than x! Everybody run!"
...or...
"Hey! I only have 1rank in Knowledge x, and I can sneak this creature anyway! Don't use up spell slots for these guys..."

Wow... It really looks like we are going somewhere with all this!

I like very much this use of knowledge skill, but I am not sure about having to make skill check (take 10 is fine)

.
This is a simplified proposition:
.

A rogue can sneak a creature if his knowledge of this creature (skill mod) is at least equal to creature's HD.

A 4th-level Rogue with 4 ranks in Knowledge(religion), with an 14INT (+2) would be able to sneak a 6HD Undead.

A Rogue 3/ Cleric 1 (4 ranks in Religion and 14int), would have knowledge(religion) as a class skill (+3 bonus)... ability to sneak 9HD Undead

This system allows for caracter customization and specialization. If knowledge skills can also be used untrained (no ranks), rogues would have basic sneaking knowledge for lesser creatures.

A Rogue with skill focus feats, or multiclassing with Bard, would be able to sneak creature with very high HD (which is already possible with actual PFRPG rule).

This is just for one guy versus one guy. It gets complicated with multiple opponents using Perception, when things can become much tougher for the rogue - ten kobold 1st level warriors have a 40% chance of spotting a 20th level rogue sneaking by, just because of the odds of one rolling a 20.

The rule about skill check does not include automatic success on a natural 20.

Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure.

Does your progression use standard skill check rule, or your house rule of automatic success?

I really think you are all over-estimating the power of sneak attack. Sure, a 20th level rouge can get 8 potential attacks plus attacks of opportunity. You could call the lifting of construct's and undead's protection against it a huge boost for rouges.

But then you'd be pointing out that rouges should be owning all the goblins and ogres your party has ever fought. If the only thing that ever kept rouges from rocking the fight was if the enemy was undead or a construct or what not then I think we'd have heard about this before. So they're about as effective in all the fights now, but if fighters weren't complaining about how rouges kept killing all the goblins before they could cause they're too powerful then I don't think we'll hear the same argument about undead and constructs.

Sneak attack already has a lot of restrictions. You need to flank or the opponent needs to be denied his dex. Granted, flanking CAN be set to occur a lot, but even when they do get flanked there's a lot that can be done to block sneak attack. A rouge's lower BaB and the fact he needs someone to flank, the inevitable five foot shuffle that makes them move 10 ft just to get to flanking again.

Its really hard to get a full attack with flanking without having an opponent sitting still.

It should remain untouched. please. COULD be abused is very different than WILL and has anyone ever seen a situation where it HAS been abused and nothing could be done to prevent it? Please, I'd like to hear some

My proposition is to prevent the "COULD be abused" with something solid in the rules, without penalyzing none-abuser.

I don't want to remove from actual rogues, I want to remove from actual rules-lawyer and abusers. Not all players are like this, but *some* are. I don't want a rule to restrict players, I want to support them...

It is unfair for the rogue player if all major NPCs villains have see invisibilty, uncanny dodge, fortification, and so on... because of a frustrated DM... :)